NeoNote — Unstable people (and not who you think)
❝❝Wish I could disagree. Fringe groups are always going to have more than their fair share of unstable people.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
I'll just settle for saying “Not all lesbians.”
Now, see, I was going to make nice here and just touch on the subject.
As long as it's unpledged consenting adults, it's none of your business (or mine) who sleeps with who. You can call it abnormal if you wish, but only if you acknowledge that normality is a cultural condition that is subject to change. You want to talk about what is "good" for anyone, you are going to open up a warehouse of cans of worms that you are unprepared and unwilling to deal with.
As it happens, I've done the research and thinking. I've written about sex and examined how sex works in subcultures. And of course I've experimented.
I've come up with six sex rules. The first two are carved-in-stone unbreakable and easily solve 97% of sex problems in America today. Very little else about sex outside those six rules is either practical or enforceable. Long story short, in most cases your desire does not control another's choice. Your approval or disapproval doesn't matter as long as it is unpledged consenting adults.
Wow. "Fatherless children" but blame the women who sleep around.
It's a popular modern theory but people have been having sex "out of wedlock" for a long time. Far, far longer than the modern age.
Who defines what sex is abnormal? The classical Greeks encouraged homosexuality but discouraged oral sex. As I said before, normality is a cultural condition that is subject to change.
I didn't ask you to defend it because it's none of your business. If you want to talk about taking responsibility for choices, you and I would agree quite a bit. You want to talk controlling other's choices for their own good or the common good, we'll continue to disagree.
Because the problem isn't sex, it's excusing people from the consequences of their own actions. Even if it's done with the best of intentions.
Take that idea of "good." I've argued with people who tell me that all heterosexual intercourse is rape and that men should be emasculated. I've argued with people who told me that children should be introduced to sex no later than age nine. And I've argued with people who have told me very emphatically that a woman has no role beyond what her husband defines. None of this is "good" in my opinion. And yet that is all that it is, my opinion. The only real basis for "sexual morality" is choice and consequences. That's where my first sex rule comes from.
You're still emphasizing the actions of the woman more than the man when it comes to "fatherless children."
There's evidence that much of "pre-sexual" behavior is social or bonding. Things like touching, grooming, stroking. It's easy to conclude that actual sexisalso includes bonding, and animal observations confirm this. Given some of the other functions of the organs involved, obviously something other than reproduction is going on. Insisting that sex is only about biological reproduction lets people ignore the social aspects.
Somehow you imply that it's women who "poison their sexuality" without addressing the behavior of men.
I've written against surgically modifying sexuality, particularly if the subject hasn't gone through puberty and their full growth. For adults, it is their body and their choice. As long as they pay their own money, I can't really object.
It seems that your secular consequences impact the female of the species much more. In my mind, that excuses the male from assuming responsibility.
I'm not "struggling" with the definition of good, I'm openly acknowledging that any such definition is going to be subjective.
You're removing sexual agency from women. That has all sorts of consequences. It also removes woman's responsibility for sex. Or much of anything really except maybe raising children. At the very least it's a waste of some fascinating people.
If reproduction was more important than the socialization, we probably wouldn't be using sex to reproduce. That bonding behavior is one cornerstone of human cultures everywhere.
I'm pagan. I don't hold Catholic or Christian definitions as particularly accurate. Especially considering human history and the rest of the natural world. Marriage is a solution, but it's not the solution. I don't think promiscuity is a problem, and it's certainly not something that society should "manage." Just as an obvious point, life long heterosexual marriage is not universal among human cultures.
A person's body is one of the very few things that is theirs. They were born with it, they live every day with it, and they will die with it. Take control of that away and you certainly diminish the person. Perhaps even enslave them. Now I may not approve of corporate logos tattooed on foreheads, or enough piercings to set off a metal detector at ten paces, but neither you or I have the authority to tell another adult "No." Anymore than they have the authority to demand that we have tattoos or piercings. We're not allowed to dictate another's hair style or color for good reason. It's their body and their choice.
Am I morally damaged? Interesting question. If I am, what of it? If I'm not, how would you tell? When it comes down to it, the only criteria that matters is how I touch the lives of others. That would be true of me (just as it is of you) no matter what my life experiences.
Of course words mean something. But words mean different things to different people. Words aren't absolute. "The word is not the thing. The map is not the territory." A conversation shouldn't be an echo chamber.
And the only sexual agency that a woman is allowed is virginity and chastity while men are mostly excused?
I'm pointing out that the socialization is at least as important as the reproduction. I'd add that if reproduction is the sole reason for sex, there would be a lot more kids and we wouldn't enjoy it as much.
Why must "all thinking forward beyond must be grounded in this biological reality about sex?" If people don't agree, do you intend to punish them? Why make this such an absolute?
I don't have a bias against Christianity. Tain't mine and that is usually enough. Problems do come when some Christians think and act as if their beliefs controlled everyone else's behavior. Tell me, if a choice is compelled, is it really a choice? If faith is required, is it really faith? If someone is forced, it is really their responsibility?
Ah, the body. If the body doesn't belong to someone, is their life really theirs?
Is it virtue if it isn't chosen?
I suppose it depends on what you call virtue. I serve veritas, I don't lie. I consider someone's word their bond and hold them to it. I stand between the weak and those who would prey on them. And sometimes I do the reluctant advocate when someone is not present or is unable to speak for themselves. No, I don't consider all the Christian virtues virtuous. But then, I don't see all the Hindu virtues as virtuous either. As such, I consider honor a higher calling than Christian righteousness.
Being bound by misinterpretations and misunderstandings makes failure likely. Wouldn't it be better to find what we share and build on that?
Before I continue, I sometimes use what I post on sites I visit as material for my own sites. I don't agree with much of what you say, but it is better reasoned than most. May I use your posts on this subject as well?
Responsibility, in it's simplest terms, means judging if the consequences are worth the payoff AND cleaning up your own mess. Or as I like to put it, one of the secrets of life.
Leave the World a little better than how you found it.
Now I'll agree that children should be raised with strong male and female influences. And I agree that the Ethic of Reciprocity (which Christians call the Golden Rule) is literally the keystone of Western Civilization. But beyond that, it's not anyone else's business.
I do think that sex should be between consenting adults. I might even be in favor of removing body parts of those who violate that. And I think if you promised to be someone's one and only, you're off limits to everyone. Those are my first two sex rules, so you knew that.
I'm not going to control someone else's sex life anymore than I will control their diet, the clothes they wear, or their religion. Once they are adult, it is their choice and their responsibility. I'd argue that is the essence of being an adult. In fact, I have.
"Who do my children marry in your world where bastards and rampant sexual promiscuity are just "someone's personal business"?"
Someone they choose and hopefully someone they can share happiness with. That's true no matter what the status of society or the @orld.
I seek the Divine in every woman I meet and certainly every one I've slept with. I celebrate sexuality. I doubt you believe that, but it is true.
Frankly when you forget that healthy societies are built on individual choice and individual responsibility rather than what a society requires, well, let's just say things won't go well.
As far as who cares, it's about honor. Promises made and promises kept. Honor is one of those silly things that I consider virtuous.
I'm not trying to control anything. I am advocating letting people make their own choices with responsibility. I'd argue that removing choice does more to control people than anything I do or say.
I understand why you feel the need to attack, but what have I done?
"They will not be able to share happiness with broken people who cannot keep their promises." I didn't ask them to and I didn't demand that of them.
"What is that sea of brokenness to you?" A chance for people to make the right choices while accepting responsibility. A chance for people to grow and show character. A place for honor to flourish even as it is tested.
I do not worship as you do, that does not mean I do not worship. Anymore than a Jew could accuse you of not worshipping because you do not keep Kosher law.
I'm going to point out that the most controlled societies are the most repressive societies and leave it at that.
I've given examples of my honor. It doesn't match yours obviously. But does that mean it's not honorable? Should your honor be judged on my terms? Why should mine be judged on yours?
All along I've stressed choice with responsibility. You can't have one without the other. What I disagree with is you or anyone limiting another's choice "for the greater good" or because they might make the "wrong" choice.
I come from a long line of farmers. I know hothouse flowers don't do well in the real world.
Since when did we have no bread?
Are you actually saying that unless your religion is imposed and enforced, there is no hope for the species? That people can't make the "right" choices unless all the "bad" choices are removed?
Boy, you really don't like other faiths, do you? What evidence do you have that all other worship is self-worship? Does that include the Christians you don't agree with?
As a rule, supporting oppression isn't going to lead to a healthy society. Not to mention it's effects on other little things, like freedom.
Who said I can't define honor? I already started with EoR and keeping one's word. Your problem is that I am not doing it in exactly the way you demand.
The thing is I'm responsible for me. I'm not responsible for you unless you try to control others. I've made that very clear.
Your definitions don't apply to anyone except you and those you agree with.
By removing people from situations where they choose and have to assume responsibility for those choices, you're turning them into hothouse flowers. You're making them less than fully human.
Hothouse plants don't do well without constant intervention. But perhaps that is your point.
I'd say that even today, there's plenty of bread. Other humans are under no obligation to produce the type and amount of bread you specify under the conditions you find acceptable.
Your truth, a truth, but not the truth. Those of us who aren't Christian get along fine, thanks for asking. Although we do resent it when certain folks tell us that we're living our lives wrong.
I advocate for many interests, I just don't place the ones you value over all others. I know it bothers you, I don't blame you for that.
"Inability to process complexity," that's a new one. I think maybe you should reconsider the difference between expertise and mastery.
"You cannot change a plant from one thing to another." Several thousand years of domestication and horticulture says otherwise.
Hiding humans away from the World isn't going to make them strong.
And you don't have the power to decide who will and will not have rights.
You can blame them, you can denounce them, you can call them evil personified, but you can't take away their rights.
Unless you want to sacrifice yours as well. Because the only way you can defend your rights is if you defend theirs. It's not freedom unless you share it.
You want to take away my rights, you are welcome to try. Until then, I'm going to use them. I promise that the effort will cost you much more than it will ever cost me.
Interesting how you've gone for no rights for the people you designate to no rights for people who you disagree with.
Deal with this if you dare.
Except for the date, there is no mention of any God in the U.S. Constitution. This was not an accident.“The Constitution of the United States is a remarkable and unprecedented document. At the time, other documents establishing and defining governmental authority always used a god as the final and "Supreme Authority." But except for the date, there is no mention of Deity anywhere. In fact, the Constitution reserves the final and absolute power for the people. Despite the desperate wishes of some historical revisionists, the Declaration of Independence does not supersede the Constitution.
Why did they do it? Why did the Framers of the Constitution go out of the way NOT to acknowledge the Christian god, or indeed any god? They did it because they were among the best educated men of their time. The Framers knew their history. They knew about the English Civil War. They knew how some of the American Colonies required citizens to belong to a specific church, or at least to pay taxes to it. They knew that assumed moral certainty and governmental authority made a dangerous combination.
That doesn't mean that the Founders weren't men of faith. Most of them were, even the Deists. But they knew that faith had to be personal if it was to have any meaning at all. Otherwise religion becomes just another tyranny, forcing people to go through the motions without any reason of their own.
Matters of faith are a personal choice, they should never be public policy. Would you like me to tell you how to worship your god? Why should government have the power to dictate an individual's faith and practices?”
Hmm. Disqus ate my reply. Fortunately I keep records.
"A few thousand years of whose experience?"
Would those be Buddhist humans? Perhaps Shinto humans? I know! The Flappers from the 1920s!
*grins* By your standards, the Greeks didn't have sexual morality. Neither did the Romans.
Still haven't said anything about the Buddhist, Shinto, or the Flappers.
The Flappers were part of Sein's Lost Generation, a group looked at the time as nearly hopeless, yet produced some of the most influential people of the 20th Century. The Buddhists don't say much about promiscuity or homosexuality, although their monks were (and are) celibate. As for the Shinto, well, before the Meiji reformations in Japan things were "interesting."
My point is that your views on sexuality and morality aren't universal, even among Americans.❞❞
blog comments powered by Disqus